Posted on 11/06/2003 7:31:54 PM PST by republicanwizard
Yes, his good friend Harry Truman called him in the Phillipines to get his opinion on the matter. As CIC, Truman always called MacArthur for advice... /sarcasm>
Yes. I picked 'rustbucket' as a handle for a reason.
My in-laws were each the youngest or next to youngest of ten children, and they had their own children late in life. My wife is the youngest of those children.
Their strong feelings about Yankees were a shock to me. They gave me a personal connection with Georgia history.
It appears the existence of the CSA was recognized, but full formal diplomatic relations were not obtained.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
RECOGNITION
acknowledgment of the admission of new states into the international community by political action of states that are already members. Its derivation is found in the policy of the older European powers, which, after developing a system of binding diplomatic usage, refused to permit the admission of new states to the concert of nations unless the new power was properly qualified to assume its responsibilities under international law. Recognition is retroactive to the actual date of the establishment of the state or the formation of the new government, and all its acts from that time are valid.
Kinds of Recognition
Three kinds of recognition exist.
Recognition of independence occurs when a new state is created, usually by a successful rebellion, and is accepted by members of the international community, either by a formal statement or by entering into diplomatic relations with the new state. Recognition of independence generally takes place after the new nation has demonstrated its ability to maintain itself; if a power recognizes an insurrectionary colony or dependency while the mother country is attempting to crush the rebellion, it is considered an offense to the dominant country that is being ousted.
A second type of recognition may occur when a new form of government follows the establishment of a new political force in a country. A republic may be recognized as the successor of a monarchy, or a new president may be acknowledged after the overthrow of the previous incumbent.
Recognition of belligerency, the third kind, was introduced into international law when that form of acknowledgment was given (1861) to the Confederate States of America by Great Britain. Such recognition grants the belligerents the rights and duties of a state as they concern war and commerce, but it does not grant the right to enter into official diplomatic relations with neutral nations. In recognizing belligerency, the nation offends the state against which the rebellion is directed.
When recognition is de facto it involves a provisional acknowledgment that the government in power is exercising the function of sovereignty. Such recognition is revocable and implies a lesser degree of recognition than the formal recognition accorded de jure [Lat.,=as of right].
THE ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION
The Power of Recognition
In his endeavor in 1793 to minimize the importance of the President's power of reception, Madison denied that it involved cognizance of the question, whether those exercising the government of the accrediting State had the right along with the possession. He said: ``This belongs to the nation, and to the nation alone, on whom the government operates. . . . It is evident, therefore, that if the executive has a right to reject a public minister, it must be founded on some other consideration than a change in the government, or the newness of the government; and consequently a right to refuse to acknowledge a new government cannot be implied by the right to refuse a public minister. It is not denied that there may be cases in which a respect to the general principles of liberty, the essential rights of the people, or the overruling sentiments of humanity, might require a government, whether new or old, to be treated as an illegitimate despotism. Such are in fact discussed and admitted by the most approved authorities. But they are great and extraordinary cases, by no means submitted to so limited an organ of the national will as the executive of the United States; and certainly not to be brought by any torture of words, within the right to receive ambassadors.''582
582. Letters of Helvidius, 5 Writings of James Madison, G. Hunt ed. (New York: 1905), 133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton, with the case of Genet before him, had taken the contrary position, which history has ratified. In consequence of his power to receive and dispatch diplomatic agents, but more especially the former, the President possesses the power to recognize new states, communities claiming the status of belligerency, and changes of government in established states; also, by the same token, the power to decline recognition, and thereby decline diplomatic relations with such new states or governments. The affirmative precedents down to 1906 are succinctly summarized by John Bassett Moore in his famous Digest, as follows: ``In the preceding review of the recognition, respectively, of the new states, new governments, and belligerency, there has been made in each case a precise statement of facts, showing how and by whom the recognition was accorded. In every case, as it appears, of a new government and of belligerency, the question of recognition was determined solely by the Executive. In the case of the Spanish-American republics, of Texas, of Haiti, and of Liberia, the President, before recognizing the new state, invoked the judgment and cooperation of Congress; and in each of these cases provision was made for the appointment of a minister, which, when made in due form, constitutes, as has been seen, according to the rules of international law, a formal recognition. In numerous other cases, the recognition was given by the Executive solely on his own responsibility.''583
583. 1 J. Moore, International Law Digest (Washington: 1906), 243-244. See American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of the Law, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987), Sec. Sec. 204, 205.
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1866
May 8, 1866
Sen. Zachariah Chandler of Michigan
Sen. Henry B. Anthony of Rhode Island
Sen. Daniel Clark of New Hampshire
Sen. James W. Grimes of Iowa
Sen. Ira Harris of New York
Sen. Timothy O. Howe of Wisconsin
Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania
ASIATIC CHOLERA. * * *
The Secretary read the words proposed to be inserted in lieu of the original resolution, as follows:
That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of War, with the cooperation of the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Treasury, whose concurrent action shall be directed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, to cause a right quarantine against the introduction into this country of the Asiatic cholera through its ports of entry whenever the same may be threatened by the prevalence of said disease in countries having direct commercial intercourse with the United States.Second. That he shall also enforce the establishment of sanitary cordons to prevent the spread of said disease from infected districts adjacent to or within the limits of the United States.
Third. That said Secretaries are hereby authorized to use the means at their command to carry out the foregoing provisions.
Fourth. That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to open a correspondence with the foreign powers whose proximity to the United States will endanger the introduction of Asiatic cholera into this country through their ports and territory, soliciting their cooperation with this government in such efforts to prevent the introduction and spread of said disease.
Mr. CLARK. That resolution is a very general statement, and I shall be glad to hear from the chairman of the Committee on Commerce what is proposed to be done under it, and what is the plan, if there is any, before the committee.
Mr. CHANDLER. The intention is to establish a uniform system of quarantine throughout the whole country. The proposition is drawn with very great care, and is deemed by the most eminent physicians of the United States to be an efficient plan. We have had before the committee some of the most eminent surgeons of the country; among others, the quarantine surgeons of New York; and the intention is to make the system uniform throughout the United States, and place power in the hands of the Secretaries to enforce it.
Mr. ANTHONY. I ask the Senator from Michigan the meaning of that part of the resolution which declares that the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy shall use the means at their command to enforce these provisions. Does that mean that they shall use military power, the Army and the Navy, to enforce quarantine?
Mr. CHANDLER. They are to employ the vessels at their command, and all the powers at their command may be used, if necessary. I suppose that in the case of New Orleans, or any southern port where soldiers are employed, and it may be necessary to use them as a guard, they could be used under this resolution. In other words, all the powers at the command of the Secretaries may be used at their discretion.
Mr. ANTHONY. Can they declare martial law?
Mr. CHANDLER. They may use any power requisite to stop this cholera.
Mr. ANTHONY. I would rather have the cholera than such a proposition as this. [Laughter]
Mr. CLARK. It seems to me that this resolution is nothing more than making the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy and others a board of health for the whole country, with the resources of the whole country at their command to carry it out....
* * *
Mr. GRIMES. I understood from the Senator from Wisconsin that this bill conferred the power on this commission, these three Secretaries, to establish quarantine regulations similar to those they have in New York, although not so great an extent perhaps, because to such an extent it might not be necessary, anywhere on this continent. The bill does not require that the Government shall adopt the quarantine officers of the State of New York. Oh, no; they are are to be new appointees, appointed under this law. The organization of the city of New York or the State of New York is to be entirely ignored and is ignored by this bill. We are to have another batch of office-holders, innumerable in number if it is to be extended uniformly over the country according to the idea of the Senator from Wisconsin, which I understand is the idea of the committee.
I have not any such fear of the cholera as to induce me to vote for a bill like this. I believe that it will be attended with infinitely worse consequences to the country than the most malignant type of cholera that ever prevailed upon this continent. As my friend near me says, one thing would certainly result from it, and that is that it would give the cholera to the Treasury of the United States if it should be enacted into a law. [Laughter.]
... There is nothing, according to the provisions of this bill, as I understand it, that it does not authorize the three Secretaries to do. I trust that the time has gone by when we are going to be called upon to legislate in the manner in which this bill proposes. During the prevalence of the war we drew to ourselves here as the Federal Government authority which had been considered doubtful by all and denied by many of the statesmen of this country. That time, it seems to me, has ceased and ought to cease. Let us go back to the original condition of things, and allow the States to take care of themselves as they have been in the habit of taking care of themselves.
Mr. HOWE. Take care of their own cholera!
Mr. GRIMES. Yes, sir, take care of their own cholera. My state will take care of its own cholera. I do not want to have a cordon, as they call it, against the cholera established between my state and the city of Chicago. I do not want officials, either of the Treasury or of the Army or the Navy out there to prevent a citizen from traveling from one place to another, either on the lakes or on the Mississippi river, which authority is conferred by the provisions of this bill. In my locality we are familiar with this disease; we know that it has not got such terrors as it seems to have to gentlemen who are not familiar with it, and we do not want to have our liberty restrained, nor do we want to have our privilege of locomotion restrained, nor do we want to have the Treasury afflicted by any such bill as this.
Mr. COWAN. I can only add to what has been so well said by my eloquent friend from Iowa, that in the present condition of the medical science nothing can be more absurd that this legislation. If there is any one thing I think well settled, it is that cholera is not contagious in that sense of the word which would enable you by means of some legislative enactment to keep it out of the country....
Poor wording on my part. I stand corrected.
"Justice James Moore Wayne of Georgia, last survivor of Marshall’s Court, remained; until his death in 1867, he voted to sustain all the war measures the Court passed judgment on."
When Justice Stephen Johnson Field was appointed on May 20, 1863:
1. [MD] Roger Brooke TANEY (1836-1864)
2. [GA] James Moore WAYNE (1835-1867)
3. [TN] John CATRON [1837-1865]
4. [NY] Samuel NELSON [1845-1872)
5. [PA] Robert Cooper GRIER (1846-1870)
6. [ME] Nathan CLIFFORD (1858-1881)
7. [OH) Noah Haynes SWAYNE (1862-1881)
8. [IA] Samual Freeman MILLER (1862-1877)
9. [IL] David DAVIS (1862-1877)
The legislation of 1801 and 1802 had been the product of political infighting. The same was true in 1866, when Congress sought to deny President Andrew Johnson an opportunity to submit nominations for Court openings by providing that no vacancies were to be filled until the number of seats on the bench had been reduced to seven. As it turned out, the number never fell below eight. Meantime, in 1869, President Grant found a need to "pack" the Court, and Congress obliged by building the number back up to nine.
The reason for the "packing" was the Court's unreconstructed attitude toward the constitutionality of the Civil War legal tender acts, which had dealt with a financial emergency by making paper money ("greenbacks") acceptable on a parity with gold and silver in payment of certain obligations. A seven-judge Court held the law unconstitutional by a margin of 4-3, on February 4, 1870 (Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 Wall. 603). Grant, whose nominations for the two new positions authorized by Congress had been hanging fire, had his nominees (William Strong of Pennsylvania and Joseph Bradley of New Jersey) confirmed within a month following this first Legal Tender Case. Fifteen months later, on May 1, 1871, the two new jurists joined the former minority of three to form a 5-4 majority upholding the legislation in the Second Legal Tender Case (Knox v. Lee, 12 Wall. 457).
I am shocked, shocked I tell ya ;o)
our SCV camp has 3 real sons of CSA veterans!
free dixie,sw
Even had Justice Wayne voted as a rebel sympathizer, unless half of the other Justices saw the law the same way he did it would have made no difference. Which FIVE justices do you think were rebel sympathizers?
The evidence is clear. The radicals could only have feared losing the vote of 5 of the 9 justices. Fearing that more than half of the justices would find their actions unlawful, they proceeded to play with the Court's membership to rig the decisions.
And when that failed, as in the 9-zip decision in Ex Parte Milligan, they interfered with the jurisdiction of the court as in McCardle.
McCardle was a newpaper editor in Vicksburg, Mississippi, who was arrested by federal officials for writing a series of newspaper articles that were highly critical of Reconstruction and especially of the military rule of the sourth following the Civil War....Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies, Second Edition, 2002, Erwin Chemerinsky,McCardle contended that the Military Reconstruction Act was unconstitutional in that it provided for military trials for civilians. He also claimed that his prosecution violated specific Bill of Rights provisions, including the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. The United States government argued that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus to McCardle under the 1867 Act. The federal government read the 1867 statute, despite its language to the contrary, as providing federal court relief only for state prisoners. The Supreme Court rejected this contention and set the case for argument on the merits of McCardle's claim that the Military Reconstruction Act and his prosecution were unconstitutional
On March 9, 1868, the Supreme Court held oral arguments on McCardle's constitutional claims. Three days later, on March 12, 1868, Congress adopted a rider to an inconsequential tax bill that repealed that part of the 1867 statute that authorized Supreme Court appellate review of writs of habeas corpus. Members of Congress stated that their purpose was to remove the McCardle case from the Supreme Court's docket and thus prevent the Court from potentially invalidating Reconstruction. Representative Wilson declared that the "amendment [repealing Supreme Court authority under the 1867 Act is] aimed at striking at a branch of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court... thereby sweeping the [McCardle] case from the docket by taking away the jurisdiction of the Court."
On March 25, 1868, President Andrew Johnson vetoed the attempted repeal of Supreme Court jurisdiction. It should be noted that this was five days before the Senate was scheduled to begin its impeachment trial of President Johnson and that the grounds for impeachment focused solely on his alleged obstruction of Reconstruction. President Johnson declared: "I cannot give my assent to a measure which proposes to deprive any person restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the Constitution.... from the right of appeal to the highest judicial authority known to our government." The Congress immediately overrode President Johnson's veto on March 27, 1868.
The Military Reconstruction Act was unconstitutional. The radical Congress knew it was unconstitutional. They knew the Supreme Court would rule that it was unconstitutional. In order that they should be able to perform unconstitutional acts, they took away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to rule on the case.
Alas, what would they have done if a justice had to recuse himself from a case? They could always appoint an eleventh justice. Heck, just be like FDR and go for fifteen.
What they did was destructive to the system of checks and balances and that was its specific intent. It can be rationalized, but it can never be justified.
[GOP] Andrew Jackson Johnson -- a Democrat -- was, by far, the worst President ever. Citing him or his deeds as an authority on anything is absurd.
Andrew Johnson was hand-picked for the job by Abraham Lincoln. He tried to pursue the course intended by Abraham Lincoln, rather than the radical wackos.
The actions of the Congress in McCardle make absolutely clear that they knew the Supreme Court would rule in favor of McCardle. President Johnson was right and the radical wackos were wrong in their pursuit of unconstitutional power.
Andrew Johnson was by no means the worst president ever. There could be various nominees for that honor such as Abraham Lincoln, (unconstitutional actions, the most corrupt administration in history), Ulysses S. Grant (the only competitor for the "most corrupt administration" award), and there are probably more than a few who would nominate Franklin Roosevelt.
Such as that noted Confederate-apologist Democrat historian, and Secretary of the Navy to Presidents Lincoln and Johnson, Gideon Welles.
"The disputed question of suffrage he [President Andrew Johnson] carefully weighed and investigated, reviewed the whole subject, and while, like Mr. Lincoln, he felt as a man kindly disposed toward the colored race, and would have been gratified even to give them qualified suffrage if were they possessed of capacity, like President Lincoln he came to the conclusion that the subject belonged exclusively to the States and the people of the States respectively, and that the Federal Government had no logal power or legitimate control over it."
* * *
"The views of President and President Johnson were identical; yet an organized opposition was immediately commenced against President Johnson for the honest and conscientious discharge of his constitutional duty, which pursued him with vindictive and unrelenting ferocity during his whole Administration, and malignantly and without cause or justification attempted his impeachment. Other pretexts, frivolous and false, were assigned, but the real and true cause of assault and persecution was the fearless and unswerving fidelity of the President to the Constitution, his refusal to proscribe the white people in the rebel States and the States themselves by ex post facto laws, his opposition to central Congressional usurpation, and his maintenance of the of the States and of the Executive Department of the Government against legislative aggression.
"Of the manner in which he met his assailants, and the wisdom of all that was said and done on either side during that extraordinary conflict -- which was carried on by a fragment of Congress that arrogated to itself authority to exclude States and people from their constitutional right of representation, against an Executive striving under infinite embarrassments to preserve State, Federal, and Popular rights, to restore peace and promote national union -- it is unnecessary to speak at this time, further than to say that his motives were as pure as the principles which governed both him and Abraham Lincoln were constitutional and correct.
"In this matter of extending suffrage to the colored race and of proscription of the whites, the President and most of his Cabinet were opposed to any and all oppressive measures, and to any general subversion of the laws, usages, institutions, traditions, and customs of the States respectively, excepting so far as to rid them of slavery, the radical error which had caused our national trouble and led to the arbitrament of arms. That had been by common consent on both sides in issue, and was determined by the war. Emancipation was in issue; negro suffrage was not. That was an afterthought -- a new contest, introduced after hostilities had ceased, and terms had been granted and accepted. The doctrine, recognized throughout the civilized world, that all laws not inconsistent with those of the conquerors remain in force till changed to the conquered, the centralists would not concede to the Southern States, composed of people who were their countrymen, living under the same Constitution, and like themselves amenable to existing Federal laws. They were sheltered by no treaty, and were denied the legal rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all citizens. Had the war been carried on with a foreign power, there would have been peace when hostilities ceased and the conquered party had submitted and accepted terms; but such was not the case in this instance. The defeated States were protected by no treaty, and the conquerors refused to recognize or be governed by existing laws towards the conquered. American citizens who resided at the South during the rebellion were not allowed the rights conceded to aliens if they continued to reside in that section. Leading minds in Congress and the country exerted their influence to prevent harmony and reconciliation. Hatred and revenge were cherished and inculcated towards all indiscriminately who lived in the rebel States, whether they had been actors or not, willing or involuntary, Union men or otherwise. While the Radicals did not propose to hang or imprison all, or perhaps any considerable portion, of the Southern people, all who continued to reside within the limits of any of the rebel States were to be unrepresented, to be classed as rebels, and robbed of their rights. Their fidelity to the Union during the war, and their surrender and submission, were not sufficient -- the white people, loyal and disloyal, who continued to reside South, were denied rights reserved and secured to them by the fundamental law -- rights inherent in the people of each State as distinct communities, and which were never ceded away, granted to or conferred upon the Federal Government, or in any manner parted with. All were subjected to arbitrary military rule, no further restrained under the laws which Congress proceeded to enact than the military commander placed over them might, in his own voluntary pleasure, tolerate and permit. It was a war against States as much as against persons, for not one of the thousands who fled into the Northern States was disfranchised or molested. There seemed an unreasoning fanaticism on the subject of the rights and privileges of the colored race with some, who in their zeal persuaded themselves that the cause of liberty was with the negro, not with the white man. Negro suffrage and negro supremacy over the whole South became with these men the one great absorbing idea. Others less sincere than the fanatics, but who had party, personal, and mercenary ends in view, and central principles to promote, allied themselves with the fanatics against the President, in the confident expectation that, by the aid of negro votes, the party of centralists would secure and maintain ascendancy in the General Government. This party, which soon assumed the name of Radical, scouted at all legal restraints upon their schemes against the States and against white men, and did not hesitate to disregard and break down all constitutional barriers which were in their way, although but few had the frankness of their chief leader, Thaddeus Stevens, to declare they were independent of and outside the Constitution."
* * *
"It is also worthy of observation that Messrs. Sumner and Colfax and others took no exception to the plan or policy of reconstruction instituted by President Lincoln and adopted by President Johnson; but they, with Mr. Stanton, undertook to assist the President, and shape and perfect the Executive Order to meet their peculiar views. When however, President Johnson declined, as President Lincoln had declined, to intermeddle with the subject of suffrage, he was accused of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' for the steps which he had taken to reconstruct the States and resume the national authority."
* * *
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.